Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Massachusetts Considers Denying Constitutional Rights to Innocent Arrestees

Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong. I hope I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is burning like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?

8 comments:

Curmudgeon said...

In one of your post you related a southern response to this.. as my ex is from That state that begins with an "A" and where you live (I'll not set foot there again),, anyway back to my point... the saying was

"Oh HELL NO" (I believe that is correct)

Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous. The current operators of the Massachusetts government would definitely have found themselves at odds with the Founding Fathers, many of whom were from that state.

Denying constitutional rights to arrestees goes against the presumption of innocence that is inherent in American jurisprudence.

Even leftist, democrat commentators such as Gore Vidal have written about the dangers of the "National Security State".

We are unfortunate to be witnessing the end of America, to be replaced with a collectivist version of current European politics and law, where the citizen is a pawn and allegiant of the state, rather than the state being derived from the consent of the governed, as originally intended here.

It is very discouraging. The people perpetrating these abominations have no idea what they are stirring up.

Anonymous said...

Next; Tobacco Users to have Gun-Purchase-Rights curtailed.
We'll Make do with Fuel-Air Combinations until some Captured Weapons can be Procured.

Anonymous said...

They got it wrond ... surely it should be ELECTED but not yet convicted of a crime ...

That pesky Constitution - it prevents so much 'reasonable' and 'comon sense' repression!

III

Anonymous said...

Ahem.

Multiple arrests absent ANY convictions - yes ONLY arrests- means you ARE denied a carry permit in Illinois.
This law is new and not even yet implanted (not one carry license has been issued yet).

And remember this - the NRA absolutely REFUSED to oppose this law and IS currently actively assisting Illinois government and LEO impose that upon us. Heck, their golden boy democrat partner just loved it when this bill passed. Local "gun rights activists groups" - including ISRA cheered it, called it "historic" and even outwardly supported it ( ISRA).

So y'all will have to pardon me on this one regarding the give a shit meter. It isn't being threatened here, it's already law. (But at least all those NRA credentialed trainers are pulling in that money!

Hey mike, folks often ask you for original content. If that black dog rears his ugly head anytime soon, I sure would be interested in a ravenous critique of the state of affairs in Illinois pertaining to its NRA aided "carry" law. I think that target rich environment would make any black dog run and hide, whimpering all the way home.....

Anonymous said...

Let's see...that's Kalifornia, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, New York and now Massachusetts are all on my 'no go', 'no pass through' vacation list. Have to consider that I always travel with reasonably serious armament, ammo and standard capacity magazines and carry proof of my crime free background (CHL), but would still be considered to be a criminal in these states.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and as such can only be taken from a citizen with due process. This will not stand a Constitutional challenge and the Supreme Court will have to strike it down. In the meantime, however, people may actually have their rights infringed. My suggestion is to take names, if the Court rules that an infringement has occurred, sovereign immunity or qualified immunity is forfeit and you can go after their personal assets. I know it's the consolation prize, but it's the only one you can get within the system.

Paul X said...

There comes a point when it no longer makes sense, to allow yourself to be arrested. That point is the beginning of the Revolution, for you at least.